Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conceptual photography, since the 1960's, has developed a different approach to photographing than any other photographical genre. Its main focus was on the concept behind the image, on its idea. However, my aim, in this article, is to analyze a variation of conceptual photography, more precisely the narrative one, its history and aesthetics, but also how it was explored by Jeff Wall (b. 1946) and how the Canadian artist approached and integrated time in his photographs. The main purpose of this article is to understand Jeff Wall's place in the history of staged photography and to understand how he developed a creative type of visual narration and its relationship to time. This aspect will be seen in relation to the idea of fiction because the imaginary narration is closely linked with the progression of time. Also, this analysis could be particularly relevant in the context of photographical studies because it focuses on an aspect that has quite psychological and aesthetical depth but it is not present in the field of artistic academic research, namely the connection between fiction and photography. It can also be seen trans-and interdisciplinary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".